DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 13-24are pending. Claims 13 and 24 are the independent claims. Claims 13 and 24 have been amended. Claims 1-12 were previously rejected. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 11/04/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/04/2025, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims files on 11/04/2025, the rejection of claims 13-24 under 35 U.S.C § 101, have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 11/04/2025, see pages 8-11 “35 U.S.C § 103 Rejections”, with respect to claims 13 and 14, have been fully considered but they are not respectfully persuasive. With respect to claim 13 and 24, applicant argues that the combination of the prior arts of record (Albinger combined with Eggert, Roni-Damond, and Edeler), fails to disclose or suggest the amended claims 13 and 24. Specifically, applicant argued that Albinger in combination with the aforementioned art of record do not teach the certain limitation of manually selecting a preferential parameter by entering the preferential parameter into the selection interface; calculating a plurality of load curves as a function of the preferential parameter. The office respectfully disagrees because, according to the rejection of claim 13 in office action filed on 09/05/2025, Examiners relied on Edeler for the teaching a load curve as a function of the preferential parameter according to at least the cited paragraphs. As also mentioned by applicant, Edeler reference determines a load curve as a function of parameters based on various sub-assemblies of the crane. The argument’s applicant toward Edeler’s user input being the actual configuration and not a preferential parameter of an element of a subassembly is not persuasive. In fact, Edeler teaches ascertaining a load capacity of a crane in a particular configuration which is determined by at least one parameter of the sub-assembly. Further these load capacities (calculated or predetermined) stores as a function of at least one parameter, where the parameters are obtained from sensors or input manually to the system. Therefore, different parameters indicate different configurations of the crane and indicates corresponding load capacity based on that configuration. Therefore, different load charts based on the crane parameters are stored for load capacity. If one parameter remains constant, different scenarios would be accessed. Plurality of loads based on boom angle is shown in fig 3 of Edeler. In other words, different load capacities are adapted in Edeler based on different crane configuration that are based on different sub-assembly structure. Therefore, preferred parameter would read on the actual configuration of the crane because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a crane operating system of Albinger to determine a load capacity as a function of an input configuration parameter as taught by Edeler, and further to include an interface for the operator to input a preferential parameter before the crane operating and determine the corresponding load curve/capacity based on the preferential parameter according to the available load charts as function of crane’s parameters. This is the office stance that the term “preferred parameter” has been narrowly interpreted by the applicant. The preferred parameter is directly stated as being a preferred mast height, mast composition, ballast mass, and ballast capacity. These all read as actual configurations of the crane. However, just for the purpose of compact prosecution and in alternative rejection, (see the rejection of claims 13 and 24 in office action below), Abel et al., US 9126812 B2, also teaches manually selecting a preferential parameter by entering the preferential parameter into the selection interface; calculating a plurality of load curves as a function of the preferential parameter (See at least Abstract and Col 2, Lines 40-67, Col 3, Lines 1-14, Lines 39-45).
Further, Applicant argued that Albinger does not teach a method wherein a preferential parameter is manually selected. Although Albinger, Eggert and Roni-Damond teaches determining the load chart automatically after the crane is in a particular position, however, Edeler teaches inputing the configuration of the crane and adapt a load curve based on that which shows different load curves according to different combination of sub assembly parameters (load curves as function of parameters). Accordingly and as also mentioned above this is the office stance that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the crane operating system of Albinger in view of Eggert and Roni-Damond, and further in view of Edeler, to have an interface for the operator to manually input a preferred parameter of a sub-assembly as taught by Edeler and calculates a preferential load curve according to that preferential parameter and control the crane based on that.
Applicant further argued that the combination of references would not have arrived at a tower crane including a mast a jib and a ballast operating according to a preferential load curve, the office respectfully disagrees. Egger discloses a device for determining a load state of a tower crane based on the tower crane’s supporting structure and teaches according to [0011], to manipulate the supporting structure of a tower crane and adapt it to the changing loads during operation. Further according to [0016], the said supporting structure comprises a boom (which is, according to Fig. 1 of Eggert, equivalent to jib in the present application) and a tower (which is, according to Fig. 1 of Eggert, equivalent to mast in the present application). Therefore, Eggert teaches adapting the said structure variably to the respective determined load state. Also, Roni-Damond teaches according to at least paragraph [0012], adapting an operating characteristic of a tower crane to the configuration, and in particular a load curve; Accordingly, it is the office stance that the combination of aforementioned art in view of Edeler as discussed above, would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed limitations.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13, 15 and 17-19, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albinger, US 20190144247 A1, hereinafter “Albinger”, in view of Eggert, US 20230399207 A1, hereinafter “Eggert” or as alternative in view of Roni-Damond et al., US 20220185636 A1, hereinafter “Roni-Damond”, and further in view of Edeler et al., US 20170260029 A1, hereinafter “Edeler” or as an alternative rejection in view of Abel et al., US 9126812 B2, hereinafter “Abel”.
Regarding Claim 13, Albinger discloses A method of lifting a load by a 202 would select a load chart that is valid for determined configuration.”) wherein the adaptation of the load curve to the configuration of the
However, Albinger doesn’t explicitly teach a tower crane, calculating a plurality of load curves as a function of the preferential parameter, a load curve calculated as a function of the selected preferential parameter, and wherein the plurality of tower crane parameters includes a height of a mast, a ballast mass, a mast composition, and the preferential parameter includes a preferred mast height, a preferred mast composition, a preferred ballast mass, and a preferred ballast capacity.
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are many references teach adapting a load curve for a tower crane. For example, Eggert discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15 ) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9) and teaches, wherein the plurality of tower crane parameters includes a height of a mast, a ballast mass, a mast composition, and the preferential parameter includes a preferred mast height, a preferred mast composition, a preferred ballast mass, and a preferred ballast capacity (Roni-Damond, ¶54, 62).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
Furthermore, Edeler teaches calculating a plurality of load curves as a function of the preferential parameter; and a load curve as a function of the preferential parameter. (Edeler, at least ¶35 “calculation of the load capacity on the basis of a formulaic relationship”, ¶38, 53, Figs. 3-6, ¶109, 112, claims 16 and 24).
Also, in alternative, Abel et al., US 9126812 B2, also teaches manually selecting a preferential parameter by entering the preferential parameter into the selection interface; calculating a plurality of load curves as a function of the preferential parameter (See at least Abstract “the load capacity is determined in dependence on at least one first and one second parameter”, Col 1, Lines 52-67, Col 2, Lines 40-67, “the parameters are entered manually”, Col 3, Lines 1-14, Lines 39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adopted load curve of a crane to a configuration of the crane as taught by Albinger in view of Eggert or as alternative in view of Roni-Damon, to be a function of a preferential parameter as taught by Edeler or Abel in alternative rejection, in order to improve the control of the crane performance according to different parameters in the crane working environment.
Regarding claim 15, Albinger in view of prior arts relied upon discloses the method according to claim 13, however, Albinger doesn’t explicitly disclose the mast composition refers to a choice of a number of reinforced or unreinforced mast elements included in the mast.
However, Roni-Damond teaches wherein the mast composition refers to a choice of a number of reinforced or unreinforced mast elements included in the mast. (Roni-Damond ¶8, 23, 54 “including a composition of the mast (number of structural elements of the mast, rigidity or reinforcement of structural elements of the mast,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include selection of the preferential parameters in the load curve adaptation method as taught by Albinger where such parameters include the number of reinforced or unreinforced mast elements in the crane mast as taught by Roni-Damond in order to improve/control the crane performance by improving the crane stability/rigidity.
Regarding claim 17, Albinger in view of prior arts relied upon discloses the method according to claim 13, however, Albinger doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the configuration of the tower crane is associated with a plurality of tower crane parameters from which a selection of at least two preferential parameters are operated.
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
Further, Edeler teaches wherein the configuration of the crane is associated with a plurality of crane parameters from which a selection of at least two preferential parameters are operated. (Edeler ¶12 “It is possible for a functional element to have various states (for example, a variable boom has two state parameters: length and boom angle; a support member has the state parameter of length of extension or support breadth) which define the configuration of the functional element”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adopted load curve of a crane to a configuration of the crane as taught by Albinger to select at least two preferential parameters as taught by Edeler in order to improve the control of the crane performance according to different parameters in the crane working environment.
Regarding claim 18, The method according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of load curves is preloaded into a memory unit included in the
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
Regarding claim 19, Albinger discloses in addition to the preferential load curve, a preferential value is generated for at least one
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
Regarding claim 21, Albinger discloses the method according to claim 13, however, Albinger doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a consistency monitoring is operated between an actual
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
Nevertheless, Edeler teaches, wherein a consistency monitoring is operated between the actual crane configuration and the preferential crane configuration including the preferential parameter (Edeler ¶1, 5, claim 28) and which is generated by the processing unit as a function of the user's specific request. (Edeler ¶109 “The configuration of the boom system can for example be detected by inputting, for example by a user inputting,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adaptation method for a crane as taught by Albinger in view of prior arts relied upon to include a consistent monitoring between the crane’s actual and preferential configurations as taught by Edeler in order to ensure the crane’s optimal performance, safety and stability and prevent accidents/structural failures.
Regarding claim 24, Albinger discloses a other functions such as monitoring the boom 16.”), the processing unit being configured to monitor actuators of the crane and on the other hand, to calculate the plurality of load curves and to store the plurality of load curves in a memory unit included in the processing unit. (Albinger ¶19);
However, Albinger doesn’t explicitly teach a tower crane, load curve calculated as a function of the selected preferential parameter and wherein the plurality of
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9), and teaches, wherein the plurality of tower crane parameters includes a height of a mast, a ballast mass, a mast composition, and the preferential parameter includes a preferred mast height, a preferred mast composition, a preferred ballast mass, and a preferred ballast capacity (Roni-Damond, ¶54, 62).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
Furthermore, Edeler teaches a load curve as a function of the preferential parameter. (Edeler ¶35 “calculation of the load capacity on the basis of a formulaic relationship”, ¶38, 53).
Also, in alternative, Abel et al., US 9126812 B2, also teaches a selection interface through which a preferential parameter is manually selected from among a plurality of tower crane parameters with which is associated the tower crane configuration (See at least Abstract “the load capacity is determined in dependence on at least one first and one second parameter”, Col 1, Lines 52-67, Col 2, Lines 40-67, Col 3, Lines 1-14, Lines 39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adopted load curve of a crane to a configuration of the crane as taught by Albinger in view of Eggert or as alternative in view of Roni-Damon, to be a function of a preferential parameter as taught by Edeler or Abel in alternative rejection, in order to improve the control of the crane performance according to different parameters in the crane working environment.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albinger, in view of Eggert (Or Roni-Damond), further in view of Edeler (or Abel), and further in view of Morath et al., US 10207904 B2, hereinafter “Morath”.
Regarding claim 16, Albinger discloses the method according to claim 13, however, Albinger doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the calculation of the plurality of load curves is performed by fixing a value of the preferential parameter and by varying values of the
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
Nevertheless, Morath teaches the calculation of the plurality of load curves is performed by fixing a value of the preferential parameter and by varying values of the crane parameters other than the preferential parameter. (Morath ¶41, claim 1 “varying luffing of the crane while holding constant telescoping of the crane at a first value,”)
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albinger, in view of Eggert (or Roni-Damond), further in view of Edeler (or Abel), and further in view of Braun et al., US 20170036894 A1, hereinafter “Braun”.
Regarding claim 20, Albinger in view prior arts relied upon discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the plurality of load curves is preloaded into the memory unit included in the user's specific request includes a definition of a parameter of a site on which the
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
Nevertheless, Braun teaches wherein the user's specific request includes a definition of a parameter of a site on which the crane is installed. (Braun, ¶21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to preload the plurality of load curves of a crane into a memory unit in the crane as taught by Albinger in view of prior arts relied upon and also include the definition of a crane site’s parameter as taught by Braun in order to ensure safe and efficient lifting by helping a crane user to understand the crane operational constraints.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albinger, in view of Eggert (or Roni-Damond), further in view of Edeler (or Abel), and further in view of Krutz et al., US 20190389700 A1, hereinafter “Krutz”.
Regarding claim 22, Albinger in view of Edeler discloses the method according to claim 21, however, Albinger in view of Edeler doesn’t explicitly disclose the consistency monitoring between the actual
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
However, Krutz (US 20190389700 A1) teaches the consistency monitoring between the actual crane configuration and the preferential crane configuration is performed through a manual check by the user or an assembler of the crane. (Krutz ¶4, 21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adaptation method for a crane as taught by Albinger in view of prior arts relied upon to include a consistent monitoring between the crane’s actual and preferential configurations as taught by Edeler, and further to include monitoring through manual check as taught by Krutz in order to ensure real-time detection of any potential issues, verification of sensor accuracy for safe operation and compliance with safety protocols.
Regarding claim 23, Albinger discloses wherein the consistency monitoring between the actual
Nevertheless, although Albinger teaches the method for calculating a crane capacity for a mobile crane (See the mapping for the rejection of claim 13), and doesn’t explicitly teach the recited method for a tower crane, but Albinger discloses according to ¶42, that the disclosed invention has applicability to many types of cranes. Furthermore, there are references teaches adapting a load curve for a tower crane, for example Eggert, discloses determining a load state and/or an operating state of a tower crane structure and teaches controlling the tower crane depending on the determined load state and/or operating state and adapting a load capacity based on the parameters such as ballasting, tower height, boom length, and etc. (Eggert, ¶9, 15-16, 56 and claims 12-15) Or in alternative rejection, Roni-Damond discloses a tower crane and a lifting and handling device for a crane where the load curve is selected based on the configuration of the device and more specifically based on the configuration of the crane structure, such as the height of the mast and etc. (according to Roni-Damond, ¶8-9).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Albinger which can be extends to any crane for adapting a load curve to a tower crane configuration as taught by Eggert or Roni-Damond in alternative, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of a tower crane and increasing the stability of the supporting structure and thus safety during the operation of a tower crane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the calculation of a crane load curves as taught by Albinger by fixing a value of the preferential load curve and varying values of other crane parameters as taught by Morath in order to generate a plurality of load curves as a function of different crane parameters that is essential in controlling the crane performance in the associated crane working environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669